Gendercide—to borrow the title of a 1985 book by Mary Anne Warren—is often seen as an unintended consequence of China’s one-child policy, or as a product of poverty or ignorance. But that cannot be the whole story. The surplus of bachelors—called in China guanggun, or “bare branches”— seems to have accelerated between 1990 and 2005, in ways not obviously linked to the one-child policy, which was introduced in 1979. And, as is becoming clear, the war against baby girls is not confined to China.

Parts of India have sex ratios as skewed as anything in its northern neighbour. Other East Asian countries—South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan—have peculiarly high numbers of male births. So, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, have former communist countries in the Caucasus and the western Balkans. Even subsets of America’s population are following suit, though not the population as a whole.

The real cause, argues Nick Eberstadt, a demographer at the American Enterprise Institute, a think-tank in Washington, DC, is not any country’s particular policy but “the fateful collision between overweening son preference, the use of rapidly spreading prenatal sex-determination technology and declining fertility.” These are global trends. And the selective destruction of baby girls is global, too.

…

Until the 1980s people in poor countries could do little about this preference: before birth, nature took its course. But in that decade, ultrasound scanning and other methods of detecting the sex of a child before birth began to make their appearance. These technologies changed everything. Doctors in India started advertising ultrasound scans with the slogan “Pay 5,000 rupees ($110) today and save 50,000 rupees tomorrow” (the saving was on the cost of a daughter’s dowry). Parents who wanted a son, but balked at killing baby daughters, chose abortion in their millions.

The use of sex-selective abortion was banned in India in 1994 and in China in 1995. It is illegal in most countries (though Sweden legalised the practice in 2009). But since it is almost impossible to prove that an abortion has been carried out for reasons of sex selection, the practice remains widespread. An ultrasound scan costs about $12, which is within the scope of many—perhaps most—Chinese and Indian families. In one hospital in Punjab, in northern India, the only girls born after a round of ultrasound scans had been mistakenly identified as boys, or else had a male twin.

The spread of fetal-imaging technology has not only skewed the sex ratio but also explains what would otherwise be something of a puzzle: sexual disparities tend to rise with income and education, which you would not expect if “backward thinking” was all that mattered. In India, some of the most prosperous states—Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat—have the worst sex ratios. In China, the higher a province’s literacy rate, the more skewed its sex ratio. The ratio also rises with income per head.

…

So modernisation and rising incomes make it easier and more desirable to select the sex of your children. And on top of that smaller families combine with greater wealth to reinforce the imperative to produce a son. When families are large, at least one male child will doubtless come along to maintain the family line. But if you have only one or two children, the birth of a daughter may be at a son’s expense. So, with rising incomes and falling fertility, more and more people live in the smaller, richer families that are under the most pressure to produce a son.

…

And, according to the World Health Organisation, female suicide rates in China are among the highest in the world (as are South Korea’s). Suicide is the commonest form of death among Chinese rural women aged 15-34; young mothers kill themselves by drinking agricultural fertilisers, which are easy to come by. The journalist Xinran Xue thinks they cannot live with the knowledge that they have aborted or killed their baby daughters.

——————–

Thanks to ‘choice’ which ’empowers women’, millions of baby girls and young mothers are dying… Pro-choice really makes its mark, to the tune of 40 million fewer women in China alone.

The number is based on the sexual discrepancy among people aged 19 and below. According to CASS, China in 2020 will have 30m-40m more men of this age than young women.

10 Responses to “How Abortion in Practise is Rabidly Anti-Feminist”

The “anti-black” argument is completely ridiculous. It’s not being forced upon them. The reason abortion rates are higher in African-Americans is because the rates of unplanned pregnancies are also higher – you tend to find this in Western countries among groups of lower socio-economic status.

Likewise, criticism of the pro-choice movement based on what some people in China or Gujarat do is erroneous.

Personally, I wish there were no abortions. But I support the right for someone to get one if they need. The reality is that people do have premarital sex. Hopefully they will protect themselves, but the reality is that many are irresponsible. Those irresponsible people, who don’t want children, will make irresponsible parents, and produce kids with all kinds of problems. Who will look after them? The conservatives? Nuh-uh.

See, the problem with conservatives generally is they care so much about the rights of the unborn children of the poor and disenfranchised; but once that child is born, conservatives no longer care. Conservative policies consistently attack the poor, which is strange considering that so many conservatives claim to follow Jesus Christ.

The “anti-black” argument is completely ridiculous. It’s not being forced upon them.

Oh wow! So Black fetuses voluntarily agree to having their life snuffed out? No wonder Obama is such a wunderkind! /snark

See, the problem with conservatives generally is they care so much about the rights of the unborn children of the poor and disenfranchised; but once that child is born, conservatives no longer care. Conservative policies consistently attack the poor, which is strange considering that so many conservatives claim to follow Jesus Christ.

O rly?

Then why is it that Conservatives outgive Liberals in charity despite earning less? Conservatives give their own money to the needy; Liberals give other people’s money.

And why is it when Reagan enacted his horribly, horribly biased pro-rich tax cuts and assorted anti-poor policies, the unemployment rate plummeted – especially among the working class? Whereas the opposite happened with FDR’s New Deal and Obama’s Stimulus?

Conservatives don’t support welfare entitlements, but that is because – as welfare reform in Clinton/Newt’s time proved – cutting back on welfare gets people out of poverty. What was that about teaching a man to fish as opposed to promising him a fish a day for no work commitment?

The point is that abortion is no more anti-black than it is anti-white or anti-Asian. For socio-economic reasons, black women elect to have abortions more frequently than other groups in the US. Saying abortion is anti-black is like saying basketball jerseys are pro-black because they are disproportionally worn by black people.

There are plenty of perfectly valid arguments for opposing abortion, but the “it’s genocide against blacks” is just the nuttier black conservatives grasping at straws.

Obama’s views on abortion are supported by at least half of the population of the US. So the constant implications that he is a murderer, such as on your blog, must then also apply to those 150 million+ Americans who are also pro-choice. That’s a lot of murderers.

There are plenty of perfectly valid arguments for opposing abortion, but the “it’s genocide against blacks” is just the nuttier black conservatives grasping at straws.

You’re right, I apologize for my narrow view.

Abortion is a colour blind atrocity against babies of all races, therefore it is not genocide. Rather, as the elimination across all sub-groups of a certain species, I suppose it is more of speciecide.

Obama’s views on abortion are supported by at least half of the population of the US. So the constant implications that he is a murderer, such as on your blog, must then also apply to those 150 million+ Americans who are also pro-choice. That’s a lot of murderers.

Hell yes!

It may sound shocking to put it that way, but what – am I supposed to condone slavery, the Holocaust or wiping Israel off the map just because the majority or millions supported/support it?

But to be specific, it’s more like 32% who don’t think abortion is wrong, with a similar percentage who support the late term abortions that Obama does. (I wonder how many support withholding medical care from abortion survivors like he did 4 times?)

Your quote of 32% is a bit dodgy, since there is an unaccounted for 15%. In any case, I’d wager that there are a fair chunk of people who think abortion is wrong until they find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy. I’ve personally seen a number of people in that situation. Sarah Palin talked about wrestling with the choice of whether to go through with the pregnancy of her baby with down syndrome. And all power to her for the decision that she made; yet she wants to take away other women’s right to decide for themselves.

Ultimately what it comes down to is whether you think a fetus is a baby. It’s a tricky area, and even the most adamantly pro-choice people wouldn’t be flippant about this. But to think that a human (in the sense of having human rights) is created at conception strikes me as silly though.

And I can’t get my head around how the same people who are so in favour of the rights of the unborn, are usually rabidly in favour of the death penalty, and most passionately in favour of war (and see peacemaking as weak). I know not everyone thinks that way, but it is exceedingly common.

And I can’t get my head around how the same people who are so in favour of the rights of the unborn, are usually rabidly in favour of the death penalty, and most passionately in favour of war (and see peacemaking as weak). I know not everyone thinks that way, but it is exceedingly common.

When lib’rals kill their unborn babies
But want to free all of those crazies
On death row
Anything goes!

What did the unborn ever do to have their chance at life snatched away – and by methods far more cruel and painful than those used in modern capital punishment to boot?

By contrast, why the heck would we want to preserve the life of a murderer who has proven to show no regard for the lives of others – and on the taxpayer’s dime to boot? Or worse yet, release him early to get back to killing like Willie Horton, Maurice Clemmons (thanks a lot Huck!), and the former ‘innocent’ Gitmo detainees turned insurgency leaders.

Put it this way – we are pro-life. By saving unborn babies, we save their lives. By killing unrepentant murderers, we are saving the lives of potential victims – including by deterring potential murderers with the threat of extreme punishment.

For various reasons, Conservatives believe in Reagan’s mantra ‘Peace through strength’. Here are mine:

1) GW Bush’s warmongering? Saved a net 750,000 Iraqi civilian lives. No WMDs were found? I know where two of them are – one is in a grave in Tikrit, the other meets along First Avenue and the East River in New York.

2) Just because we want peace, doesn’t mean the other guy does. Without having military strength, we have no deterrent against war – paradoxical but true. See my posts on Leningrad and Krakow for historical examples.

3) Same logic as above holds for concealed carry, criminals/psychos don’t obey gun bans anyway but have second thoughts about attacking civilians who may be armed.

4) If a girl is being attacked by gang rapists in the middle of an abandoned street, and you have a gun, what would you do? If the answer is walk away because WAR IS HELL and STOP AMERICAN IMPERIALISM, congratulations – you look fabulous in a pink feather boa with no top and no botox or silicone implants! You should also consider filing a sternly worded letter condemning their actions with the UN. Come back in 10 years and see if things have improved.

All of the above seem perfectly reasonable arguments to me. Perhaps its my worldview, but I don’t see how Liberals can come to the exact opposite conclusions.

Both your arguments about the death penalty and war are fine in a perfect world where everything is black and white.

The problem with the death penalty is that it’s not just the “unrepentant murderers” who get executed. In an imperfect justice system (which unlike abortion, IS demonstratably anti-black), plenty of innocent people are wrongly convicted and can face death.

Certainly war is sometimes necessary, but in many cases it is waged on a dubious basis. There was no good enough reason for going into Vietnam that justified the enormous casualty count, for instance. I find it amazing that John McCain would jokingly sing a song about bombing Iran (hahaha, killing people, funny), while whenever Obama talks about trying to find ways of dealing with enemy states that don’t involve massive death tolls, the Right think he is a wimp.

The problem with “armed civilians” is that human nature being what it is, many people don’t have the judgement to use a gun for a justifiable purpose. Lots of people get worked up enough to commit violent acts – usually assault with fists and the like – but if you put a gun anywhere near them in that moment, you’d see a huge death toll.

Both your arguments about the death penalty and war are fine in a perfect world where everything is black and white.

Given that the world we live in is not a perfect theoretical model – so we have to go with what works best. The problem is that ‘humanitarian concerns’ trump all other factors, including guilt or innocence. Even if the accused admits to the serial killings and there is eyewitness, video and DNA evidence to prove it, life without parole is still the worst he can get. (This wouldn’t be a problem if the state didn’t provide for food, medical care, exercise, education, entertainment and such!)

But not living in a perfect world is exactly why Conservative solutions, IMHO, is more effective than Liberal ones. Let’s see what utopian fallacies common Liberal values have:

Socialism – Assumes that people will be hardworking, selfless and fair.
Welfare – Assumes that people will not take advantage of a system that rewards nonwork.
Gun control/ban – Assumes that criminals and psychopaths will obey the law the same as peacable civilians.
Diplomacy without preconditions – Assumes that the target for dialogue desires a peaceful and fair resolution.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament – Assumes that other nuclear powers will follow suit and not keep a few in the back room ‘just in case’.
Peace! – Assumes other powers won’t immediately steamroll their tanks in and rape your (or other people’s) country.
War is bad – Assumes that short-term violence is worse than decades of state-sponsored and UN-caused genocide (Iraq pre-Bush invasion).
Evil corporations – Assumes that the same kind of people working for NGOs or government aren’t similarly corrupt.
Socialized healthcare/Socialism/Communism/Soak the rich – Ignores decades of real-world results that show a conclusive FAIL.

Certainly war is sometimes necessary, but in many cases it is waged on a dubious basis. There was no good enough reason for going into Vietnam that justified the enormous casualty count, for instance.

All I can say to that is: Thank you, America, for giving your treasure and your blood so that I didn’t grow up in a country ravaged and impoverished by Communism.

I find it amazing that John McCain would jokingly sing a song about bombing Iran (hahaha, killing people, funny), while whenever Obama talks about trying to find ways of dealing with enemy states that don’t involve massive death tolls, the Right think he is a wimp.

Ok, let’s forget about what Obama’s domestic opposition thinks for a while. Let’s see what Iran thinks instead.

And speaking of jokes, did you hear the one (I mean, several dozen) about wiping Israel off the map, crushing the Zionist entity, and pushing the Jews into the sea? What a side-splitter, that Ahmadinejad! We better give him more enriched uranium for his peaceful energy purposes so he doesn’t have to use any of that oil Iran is so short of.

The problem with “armed civilians” is that human nature being what it is, many people don’t have the judgement to use a gun for a justifiable purpose. Lots of people get worked up enough to commit violent acts – usually assault with fists and the like – but if you put a gun anywhere near them in that moment, you’d see a huge death toll.

So on the one hand, you expect criminals and psychos to adhere to gun free zones… But on the other, you think everyday people don’t have the restraint to not commit murderous acts of passion?

I submit to you that shootings in guns-a-lot states are at maximum only 2/3 that of no-guns-allowed DC.

I will admit, however, that it would be preferable to have no guns at all – as in, no guns in the whole country as it is with most of the civilized world. Then it would exceedingly difficult for criminals to procure firearms, and concealed carry by civilians would be unneccesary.

You’re right, wasn’t it Jesus who said “Kill em all and let God sort em out?”

DC’s shooting death rate, btw, says much more about DC’s social problems (eg. severe inequality) than it does about gun availability.

I’m not American, so I’d prefer to point you to my country, Australia, which has a far lower rate of shooting death, principally because people just don’t have guns. We do have our share of thugs like anywhere else, who will beat and occasionally stab people, but if they were easily able to get their hands on guns, our murder rate would spiral out of control.

With regard to “everyday people”, the kind of people who snap and start shooting up schools and the like – these were “everyday people” before the moment they started killing people. In the US this is so much more common that in other Western nations.

Saying “but Ahmedinejad did worse” is no defence. He’s an evil crackpot. Better is expected from a potential US leader.

Btw my country has what you would call “socialised healthcare”, and if any government tried to turn it into a US-style system, it would be political suicide. We’ve had it for decades and tend to laugh at the Americans fear of it. We know that even the poorest of us can get care when we really need it.

I’m sure the Vietnamese people share your appreciation for what the US did to their country. And you should read up on the CIA’s role in creating the conditions that gave rise to the Khmer Rouge.

Regarding “perfect-world” stuff, both right and left have this kind of delusion. What you say about Liberal fallacies has a lot of truth to it. But I’ll also add some conservative fallacies:

– The assumption that life is a level-playing field in which those born underprivileged can compete equally with those born to the privileged.
– The assumption that religious morality can triumph over the human drive for sex – “just don’t have sex outside marriage and you won’t have any problems.”
– The assumption that putting faith in “the market” to determine society’s direction will lead to good outcomes for all, because corporations really, really care about people.
– The idea that a a baby that has not yet been born has more right to life than many people with hopes, dreams and families who have the misfortune to live in a country that is at odds with US interests (who was it who backed the coups that put Saddam and Pinochet in power?)

This will be my last comment (I have other things to do, as I’m sure you do too!), so you can let loose as much as you like.

I’m not American, so I’d prefer to point you to my country, Australia, which has a far lower rate of shooting death, principally because people just don’t have guns. We do have our share of thugs like anywhere else, who will beat and occasionally stab people, but if they were easily able to get their hands on guns, our murder rate would spiral out of control.

Same here. As I said, if guns are hard to find in a country, keep it that way. But if criminals already have guns as in America, how will confiscating guns from civilians obedient enough to obey the law help protect them?

With regard to “everyday people”, the kind of people who snap and start shooting up schools and the like – these were “everyday people” before the moment they started killing people. In the US this is so much more common that in other Western nations.

Isn’t it worth the few and far in between nuts, if it stops the plentiful and frequent criminals?

Saying “but Ahmedinejad did worse” is no defence. He’s an evil crackpot. Better is expected from a potential US leader.

Indeed, current US leaders should follow the example of past US leaders. Like letting the Holocaust happen, then crushing the Jew-haters. Again.

Btw my country has what you would call “socialised healthcare”, and if any government tried to turn it into a US-style system, it would be political suicide. We’ve had it for decades and tend to laugh at the Americans fear of it. We know that even the poorest of us can get care when we really need it.

I can’t say personally what Oz healthcare is like, but I believe it is a mix of private and public, just as it is here.

The problem is when the entire system becomes public, i.e. fully socialized like England or Canada. There is a reason why Canadians come across the border to get medical treatment in America, a govt minister included.